2025 (7) TMI 1352 - HC - Customs

Dismissal of writ petition as not maintainable - time limitation - smuggling/diversion of Gold - scheduled offence punishable under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act - HELD THAT - Admittedly the appellant was pursuing the remedy before a wrong forum. Therefore since the learned Single Judge has held that the writ petition is not maintainable liberty would be required to be granted to the appellant to avail the remedy by filing an appeal under Section 26 of the PML Act. In the circumstances we deem it appropriate to maintain the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. So far as limitation to file appeal is concerned the period spent in this High Court from 30.09.2024 till the decision of the writ petition as well as the time taken for filing the writ appeal and the decision thereof deserves to be condoned. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1963 provides for condonation of the period which has been spent in prosecuting the litigation before the High Court. Accordingly the appellant is granted liberty to avail statutory remedy of appeal under Section 26 of the PML Act within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. If such an appeal is preferred within the aforesaid period the period spent by the appellant in prosecuting the writ petition as well as the present writ appeal shall not be taken into account while considering the aspect of delay. So far as other delays if any are concerned the same may be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law. The interim order dated 07.12.2024 granting status quo shall continue for a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment - appeal disposed off.

Summary

ISSUES:

Whether the writ petition challenging the provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act) is maintainable before the High Court.Whether the doctrine of double jeopardy applies to proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 and the PML Act concerning confiscation and attachment of alleged proceeds of crime.Whether the Customs Act, 1962 prevails over the PML Act in cases involving diversion of goods from Special Economic Zone (SEZ) to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA).The appropriate statutory remedy and forum for challenging attachment orders passed under the PML Act.Whether the period spent in prosecuting a writ petition before the High Court can be condoned for the purpose of filing a statutory appeal under the PML Act.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The writ petition challenging the provisional attachment order under the PML Act is not maintainable before the High Court because Section 26 of the PML Act provides for appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, and Section 42 provides for appeal to the High Court only from the Appellate Tribunal's decision.The doctrine of double jeopardy is applicable only in the context of criminal/prosecution proceedings and does not bar concurrent proceedings under the Customs Act and the PML Act for confiscation and attachment of proceeds of crime.The learned Single Judge correctly held that the Customs Act does not prevail over the PML Act in the context of attachment and confiscation proceedings under the PML Act; thus, the proceedings under the PML Act are not without jurisdiction.The appellant is entitled to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 26 of the PML Act against the final attachment order, and the period spent in prosecuting the writ petition and writ appeal before the High Court shall be condoned for the purpose of limitation under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory framework of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, particularly Sections 5(1), 26, and 42, which prescribe the procedure for provisional attachment and the appellate remedy against such orders.The Court relied on the principle that the doctrine of double jeopardy applies exclusively to criminal prosecutions and does not extend to civil or quasi-criminal proceedings such as confiscation and attachment under the Customs Act and PML Act.The Court recognized the exclusivity of the appellate mechanism under the PML Act and emphasized that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for the statutory appeal provided under the Act.The Court invoked Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay caused by the appellant's prior litigation before the High Court, thereby facilitating the appellant's access to the statutory appellate remedy without prejudice to limitation.